To forgive or punish?

[loser]

I don't think any of us has a right to judge another person's actions as wrong in any moral sense, and so we don't have the right (or the ability, IMO) to mete out "justice" for another's offense.

It's a lot easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk. You might not think bad of me if all I did was to rape and murder your mother or daughter but if I was to kill your dog and invite you over for barbeque and you recognized his leg as you bit down into it, I don't see you NOT judging me on a moral level, even though you may be concentrating on monetary recompense.

Reality sometimes gets in the way of ideology.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: loser It's a lot easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk. You might not think bad of me if all I did was to rape and murder your mother or daughter but if I was to kill your dog and invite you over for barbeque and you recognized his leg as you bit down into it, I don't see you NOT judging me on a moral level, even though you may be concentrating on monetary recompense. Reality sometimes gets in the way of ideology.

I'd judge you because I'm human. Then I'd kill you for harming my dog -- same reason. But I would not promote my frail, fallible human responses as the proper moral code for society, because I cannot logically argue that my emotional reactions are the best of all possible solutions for society as a whole.

Specifics do not negate a general argument. Exceptions prove rules, and all that.

And stay the hell away from my family, 'kay?:eek:

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Coffee Thanks, Bacon. I got frustrated with that interminable relative morality argument, and then I quit smoking. I needed to de-stress. I still haven't decided if I'm ready to be back here, but we'll see.

Yes, the philosophy debates always seem like hard work after a while; 'tis good to take a break. This is actually the first philosophy thread I've posted on for some months; I gave it up for society and rights. Good luck staying off the smokes by the way.

Quote by: Coffee Maybe I am splitting hairs, but my major objection is to the connotations I see in the term "punishment." I don't think any of us has a right to judge another person's actions as wrong in any moral sense, and so we don't have the right (or the ability, IMO) to mete out "justice" for another's offense. We can try to get recompense from the offender, if it is a property crime in some way, and we can try to ensure that the offender won't commit the crime again. I really think that's all we as a society can do. If the -- pick your term, sanctions, consequences, even punishments as long as we aren't thinking of those as similar to what I do to my dog when he craps on the floor -- if these actions society takes are effective as deterrents, then great. If they are effective in preventing repetitions of the offense, all well and good. But trying to make someone pay for their crimes is pointless in anything but a monetary sense.

Ah yes, I agree that making someone pay simply on the merit of causing suffering is totally senseless. Unfortunately, it is often necessary to cause suffering in order to protect ourselves. A necessary evil, if you will.

It is in many ways a shame that the logical response (prevention) so often coheres with the emotional response (suffering), since it leads to the line between the two being blurred. I think it's having a seriously detrimental effect on our legal system, with people more inclined to bay for blood and support harsher sentencing, than to realise that the true purpose of the law is to protect people, and to look dispassionately for the best deterrent.

Quote by: Coffee For me to forgive someone, I have to be in a morally superior position. I'm not in a morally superior position to anyone. How about forgetting, instead of forgiveness?

Well, I would say forgiving and forgetting are synonymous. From my point of view, forgiving is not an active process; it's simply the absence of anger or animosity towards someone who has wronged you. I don't think one has to be morally superior to do that. I think we're on the same page here but with slightly different definitions. How would you define forgiveness?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Ah yes, I agree that making someone pay simply on the merit of causing suffering is totally senseless. Unfortunately, it is often necessary to cause suffering in order to protect ourselves. A necessary evil, if you will. It is in many ways a shame that the logical response (prevention) so often coheres with the emotional response (suffering), since it leads to the line between the two being blurred. I think it's having a seriously detrimental effect on our legal system, with people more inclined to bay for blood and support harsher sentencing, than to realise that the true purpose of the law is to protect people, and to look dispassionately for the best deterrent.

Excellent point. It's hard to remember that the most effective measures for modifying the behavior of people are the same ones I use on my dog; I try to have a higher opinion of people -- but then, the fact that we respond well to punishment and reward doesn't make us less worthy, I suppose.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Well, I would say forgiving and forgetting are synonymous. From my point of view, forgiving is not an active process; it's simply the absence of anger or animosity towards someone who has wronged you. I don't think one has to be morally superior to do that. I think we're on the same page here but with slightly different definitions. How would you define forgiveness?

As the granting of absolution, the decision to allow another to wash away the taint of sin. Too religious and patriarchal for me to get behind -- but the way you are defining forgiveness sounds just right, so yes, I think we agree on our ideas, just not on our terms.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think its all relative.

If its a murder, punishment is due, forgiveness is an option.

If its your sister wearing your shirt, I think punishment is due, forgiveness should be obvious.

Context means everything, at least to me.

[Athena]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Yes, the philosophy debates always seem like hard work after a while; 'tis good to take a break. This is actually the first philosophy thread I've posted on for some months; I gave it up for society and rights. Good luck staying off the smokes by the way. Ah yes, I agree that making someone pay simply on the merit of causing suffering is totally senseless. Unfortunately, it is often necessary to cause suffering in order to protect ourselves. A necessary evil, if you will. It is in many ways a shame that the logical response (prevention) so often coheres with the emotional response (suffering), since it leads to the line between the two being blurred. I think it's having a seriously detrimental effect on our legal system, with people more inclined to bay for blood and support harsher sentencing, than to realise that the true purpose of the law is to protect people, and to look dispassionately for the best deterrent. Well, I would say forgiving and forgetting are synonymous. From my point of view, forgiving is not an active process; it's simply the absence of anger or animosity towards someone who has wronged you. I don't think one has to be morally superior to do that. I think we're on the same page here but with slightly different definitions. How would you define forgiveness?

Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and Timothy 1 and 2 also speak of the power of love. Or try Epictetus a slave who became a philosoher and when freed opened his own school. He represents well Stoicism because as a slave all he could was endure and refuse to fear his master. Stoicism is that fortitude of mind under all circumstances, the triumph of mind and will over matter and pain.

To say it is right to punish, assumes one has the power to punish, and this is not always the case. Too often, punishing is just an expression of anger coming from one who knows no other way.

[Dadoo]

Punishment is in the eyes of the punished.
The agent may believe it is inflicting punishment, when in fact it has given the punished precisely what they seek.

Often, forgiveness is punishment and vice-versa.

To polarize these themes may be errant; they are not mutually exclusive.

Which is "better"?
It all depends upon the phenomenological state and state of mind of
all parties involved.

Ther is a time for war and there is a time for peace.
However, definition will dictate when these times are.

Best of luck in your search. Don't get too hooked on phonics.
They are the approximations and symbols for ethereal thought processes, which in the end... just go away...

Be peaceful, and find peace.
Seek, and find yourself seeking.

Tra-la,
Dadoo

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Dadoo Punishment is in the eyes of the punished. The agent may believe it is inflicting punishment, when in fact it has given the punished precisely what they seek.

If that were true, the "punished" wouldn't be trying to AVOID it as actively as they do.

I don't know about you, but if I kill someone just so I can be punished for it, I'll turn myself in and confess rather than hiring the best lawyer I can find and grabbing every appeal I can if I'm convicted.

Often, forgiveness is punishment and vice-versa.

Vice versa means punishment IS forgiveness in this context. How do you figure that? An example or two would be nice.

[shawmutt]

Imagine this scenario--A lunatic storms into your kid's school, taking a half dozen young girls hostage, and proceeds to tie them up. When police storm the building, the lunatic kills the girls before turning the gun on himself.

Would you have the fortitude to forgive this person? The Amish did.

[Praxius]

Well they have no real choice.... he's dead.... what else can they do to him?

For me.... if you forgive someone too often, they will take advantage of it and will not learn anything.

It has to be a balance between forgivness and punishment. Some things can be learned by fogivness, while other things require punishment and justice.

I am a broad believer of an Eye for an Eye.... but I also balance it with forgiveness, depending on the situation.

Sometimes punishment alone can do enough justice..... and yet sometimes a mild punishment and some forgiveness can work just as well.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: shawmutt Imagine this scenario--A lunatic storms into your kid's school, taking a half dozen young girls hostage, and proceeds to tie them up. When police storm the building, the lunatic kills the girls before turning the gun on himself. Would you have the fortitude to forgive this person? The Amish did.

The Amish are quite different from the general population. A fact that they take some pride in, or they WOULD if they didn't consider pride to be a sin. Their ability to forgive is a lot higher than in most people.

[Dadoo]

Scribbler:

A knee-jerk reaction can be counted upon by evil-doers.

ie: Planes are employed to destroy a National icon.
The plan is to start a war in a foreign land.
In this case, the "punishment" is an expected reaction.
Who is punishing who, in this context?

We cannot afford to be too naive, whilst intentions are shrouded.

And, who says that "wrong-doers" actually avoid punishment?

This is not a black and white world. People are very crafty; some control others through expected action/ reaction scenarios.

B good,
Dadoo

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Dadoo Scribbler: A knee-jerk reaction can be counted upon by evil-doers. ie: Planes are employed to destroy a National icon. The plan is to start a war in a foreign land. In this case, the "punishment" is an expected reaction. Who is punishing who, in this context?

Osama Bin Laden has NOT turned himself in and neither has anyone else in Al Queda. If your premise was correct they would have done so long ago. They only get punished after we track them down and blow them up.

And, who says that "wrong-doers" actually avoid punishment?

My guess would be the trial lawyers association, followed by a whole lot of judges, jailers and cops.

B good, Dadoo

I try.

[Nikkums]

Forgiveness needs to be earned. After doing wrong, a person usually requires some sort of punishment (whether it be inflicted or occur as a natural consiquence) to see an err in their ways and become worthy of forgiveness.
I personally do not believe one should occur without the other. We should not punish without the intention of forgiving, and we should not forgive unless it has been earned.